Today, the House of Representatives passed Congresswoman Betty McCollum's (MN-04) amendment (#153) to reduce the Department of Defense's spending on military musical bands by $120 million. Adopted as part of the fiscal year 2012 defense authorization bill (H.R. 1540), this amendment will cap Pentagon spending on military bands at $200 million. In Fiscal Year 2011, the Department of Defense estimates will spend $320 million on its music programs.

The Army currently has over 100 bands employing 4,600 full-time professional musicians and support staff. The National Guard, Air Force, and Navy also have dozens of bands with full-time musicians. Over the years, the number of bands and their cost to taxpayers has continued to grow, in part because Congress conducts no oversight over this portion of the budget.

This is one of those things where I have to wonder if Congress should really get involved. I'm sure the Army is quite aware that it would have that many more infantry troops or logistics troops or whatever troops if it cut back on band members, yet this is the decision they arrived at. Who's more qualified to make it?

It seems that if the military has to cut back(Oh the horrors), they need to look at everything.. 4600 band members in the Army is nice, but is it a necessary???. Think of the legacy costs for playing in a band.

One of the issues in this defense budget is an appropriation to dig up dead marines remains in Lybia and have them returned to the US for proper burial.

Part of that is for trumpet players to play taps at fuernals of vets. Retired military is starting to fill in when active duty soldiers aren't available.

Click to expand...

Bugle, no?

There's actually a shortage of able buglers. They often resort to recording now. (story in the last couple years in the WSJ's middle column -- which, btw, is worth perusing for those who don't read the journal regularly -- very eclectic)

There's actually a shortage of able buglers. They often resort to recording now. (story in the last couple years in the WSJ's middle column -- which, btw, is worth perusing for those who don't read the journal regularly -- very eclectic)

I'm sure there are tons of individual spending issues we'd find in all departments of the government. I don't mind the congress limiting the spending. I just don't know the ins and outs of marching bands in the military. Is $200 million a lot, a little, enough? I couldn't tell you. Generally speaking, cutting spending when we're broke is a good thing.

As for advertising during Nascar, um, who cares? When marketing you try to spend your dollars in a fashion that best hits your target audience. If you're marketing Depends, you might not want to pay for ads during the X Games for example. However, if you're the military, you might want to target Nascar. Sporting events are probably more in line with the military's target demographic than is something being shown on Lifetime.